Friday, October 12, 2007

Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth: unscientific?

It has been a week of contrasts for Al Gore. No doubt he has spent much of it wondering if he should prepare champagne for breakfast on Friday, with rumors running wild over whether or not he should and would win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Just this morning, the announcement was made: the prize is his - or at least half of it. The other half goes to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Meanwhile, over in the UK, a judge criticised Al Gore's Oscar-winning movie An Inconvenient Truth for a series of inaccuracies. The ruling concludes a case brought to the UK High Court by Stuart Dimmock, a parent of two who was concerned to find that the UK Department for Education and Skills had distributed a copy of Gore's film to every state secondary school in the UK.

He argued that the film was political material, had no place in the classroom, and that its distribution to schools should be made illegal. Moreover, his legal team pointed out a list of alleged scientifically inaccuracies in the film.

The judge, Justice Burton, declined to make it illegal. In his ruling, however, he says Gore committed nine counts of scientific inaccuracy.

But was the judge right?

Sea level rise of up to 7 metres will be caused by melting of either west Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

Burton: This is distinctly alarmist... It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

Gore does not explicitly say that Greenland’s ice will disappear in the immediate future, merely that coastal areas will be dramatically flooded very soon. That point aside, there is, as Burton says, some debate over how quickly the ice caps – and Greenland in particular – could melt.

Burton: According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future.

Gore suggests that this density-driven ocean circulation system could collapse in the North Atlantic if it were to receive a large influx of cold water. The 2007 assessment of the IPCC states that it is very unlikely that the ocean conveyor belt will shut down, but very likely that it will slow down by 2100 (p. 16 of WGI summary for policymakers).

Gore implies that this could happen if the Greenland ice sheet melts. In 2006, a team of researchers led by Kirsten Zickfeld of the University of Victoria in Canada carried out a poll of 12 scientists on this question. Eight said they believed there was a 40% chance the conveyor belt would collapse if global average temperature rose by more than 4°C above pre-industrial levels. How much temperatures rise depends entirely on how society evolves and on our future energy supply.

There is a direct relationship between historic rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature

Burton: Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

Burton: Mr Gore asserts that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. However… the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

Only 21% of the 1912 ice cover on Kilimanjaro was still around in 2003. Whether or not the melting of Kilimanjaro's snow and ice cap is a symptom of global warming has long been a subject of debate. In 2006, a team of scientists apparently put the controversy to bed with a 2006 study led by Nicolas Cullen of the Tropical Glaciology Group at the University of Innsbruck. Using recent high-resolution satellite images, Cullen's team came to the conclusion that "rather than changes in 20th century climate being responsible for their demise, glaciers on Kilimanjaro appear to be remnants of a past climate that was once able to sustain them".Read more about the study here.

Burton: The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

According to NASA: "Using model and climate data, Coe and Foley calculate that a 30% decrease took place in the lake between 1966 and 1975. Irrigation only accounted for 5% of that decrease, with drier conditions accounting for the remainder. They noticed that irrigation demands increased four-fold between 1983 and 1994, accounting for 50% of the additional decrease in the size of the lake." Read more here.

The impact of Hurricane Katrina was due to global warmingBurton: Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

There is still considerable debate over the link between the strength of hurricanes and climate change, yet given that hurricanes collect their power from the temperature of surface water, there is a plausible physical link. One paper published recently comes down more strongly in favour of a link than any other previous study. I recently discussed this finding with a hurricane specialist at the UK Met Office and according to him the debate is still not resolved.

Certainly, when Gore’s film came out there was no definitive evidence for a link. Also, very few scientists would try to link a single weather event to climate change. Studies can say whether the probability of an event happening increases with global warming, though, so far as I know, none has yet been carried out on Katrina.

Burton: Mr Gore says: "A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before." The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend continues.

In September 2004, four polar bears were found dead, floating in Arctic waters - an unprecedented observation. The authors of the report in Polar Biology speculate that they may have died of exhaustion and this might have been a result of shrinking sea ice. They propose that polar bears may increasingly meet an untimely death for this reason.

Charles Monnet, first author on the paper, told New Scientist that "he doubts this was simply the result of exhaustion from having to swim further from ice to shore. More likely, weather conditions are becoming more severe in the growing expanses of open water, making swimming more difficult." Read more about the fate of polar bears and other animals here.

Coral reef bleaching events are due to global warming

Burton: Mr Gore says: "Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching." [According to] the IPCC report, if the temperature were to rise by 1 °C to 3 °C, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

I will let you judge for yourselves whether Gore's movie deserves the label "unscientific".

For my part, I would say that strictly speaking, Gore oversimplified certain points, made a few factual errors and, at times, chose the wrong poster child (Mount Kilimanjaro should have been replaced by any number of Alaskan or Andean glaciers, for instance). It's unfortunate, but it remains the most comprehensive popular documentary on climate change science I have seen.

Whether or not the science in IT is accurate surely that is not the point. What Al Gore has done is raise awareness of worst case scenarios and bring the climate change agenda into the international consciousness. In fact the very reason we are having this debate now suggests it has done its job. Whatever you believe about the ins and outs of the science of climate change, we all have to be more environmentally aware if our planet is to have a healthy future.

The judge was a dork. I could go into any school and pick up any number of political and incorrect science and humanities text books. It's the person who stands in front of the students that makes the difference. And, although I am still deeply unsure of any ex or current politician's motives in the climate change industry. Mr Gore has stood in front of people and delivered what he feels is important - more people should do this, although I do not advocate they all flood the market with 1000's of psuedoscience fims. I think Sagan should have got a nobel for Cosmos, much cooler stuff

August 2007 Update: Man-made Catastrophic Global Warming Not True. In order to be an intelligent reader you must have a basic knowledge. Please do your own homework, a starting point http://www.InteliOrg.com/ and Flawed NASA Global Warming data paid for by George Soros. UK court says Gore is a fraud.

I think it is a very dangerous development that the scientific accuracy of the film is decided not by a scientific expert but by a judge. It is clear from the judge's comments that he is ignorant of the subtlety and complexity of the matter at hand.

I was looking forward to reading your article. However, in the first paragraph you lost credibility when you cited the judge in the UK as calling for Gore's movie to be labeled 'illegal.' He did NOT say that. In fact, he thinks it should be shown in school and has a lot of really good material. But, he thinks teachers should have additional knowledge to show a more tempered view of the situation. I didn't finish your article as a result.

It is nice that someone has pointed out how much harm we are causing the planet. But it would have helped if it was presented by a scientist who actually knew what they were talking about. Our planet has gone through so many temperature fluxes, it's almost unbelievable. All of the glacial masses that remain today are just remnants of the last "ice age" or glacial maximum which ended around 19,000 years ago. During one of the eras of the dinosaurs there were no glacial masses to speak of. Earths history is mostly filled with much warmer temperatures than we experience today. But that's not the point, I wanted to say that it would have been nice if Mr. Gore would have presented us with feasible solutions to the diminishing state of our climate instead of trying to scare us all into liking him.

It sure seems to me that teaching "likley effects" of "theoretical" future weather and biological effects of global warming IS a type of propaganda and that BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT NEEDS TO BE TAUGHT! GORE'S MOVIE IS ONE SIDED AND DANGEROUS.

I have to say I’m a bit alarmed at some of the simplistic thinking in some of these comments. Gore did the world a great service by standing up to political forces who are in the pocket of industrial giants that have an interest in reaping the maximum profits without regard to environmental damage. No living scientist that I can think of could have had the combination of political moxie and independence to do what Gore has done. And if there was someone like that, he or she would be criticized for urging policy changes rather than simply delivering scientific results. Regardless of minor quibbles, the message Gore delivers is important and accurate. And, yes, he is dangerous, dangerous to the profit margins of big business.

It is true that the Earth has always been in a state of climate flux. The mini ice age of the 17th century is a good example. Many people died as a result. The head of NASA, Mike Griffin, has argued that it is hubris for humankind to decide this particular climate is ideal. I think this is a very convenient opinion considering his boss comes from the oil industry. Dr. Griffin misses the point that our present civilization literally rests on the assumption of a stable climate. We ignore that fact at our peril.

Real Scientists look at ALL the available data before suggesting any hypothesis and eventually, after testing and more data, it becomes a working theory. This piece of political propaganda is everything but scientific truth. Gore had his Theory first and then selected those data that fitted perfectly, and rejected all other observations that shows the opposite. Worse, when confronted by real scientists, he hides and does not take the challenge of being challenged.

Why then? As they say... follow the money and you will find the truth. Those people have been pushing this man-made theory in order to make money and put us all at their servitude.

Global warming is true. Nobody is denying this. But the real scientists are still out there doing observations of all the different possible causes. Nothing is pointing to that global warming is made-made. Using partial data to claim it is man-made is nothing else than Political Propaganda.

It is important to reduce the pollutants we through out (air & water). We know that some of those chemicals are harmful to the biosphere. It is important to reduce our use of fossil fuel because most of it is used to make goods and not only to be used in the our combustion engines. Once we are out of petroleum, how will we make all those goods and materials that you and I use every day?

In any case, some are suggesting that by 2013-2015 the atmosphere will start cooling down again as part of a natural cycle. It is a possibility. There is also a possibility that we will get into a glacial period. If this global warming was not caused by greenhouse gas emissions, what will we need to do to warm up the atmosphere to avoid loosing our crop lands to glaciers? I am sure Mr. Gore will find a new way to scare people into doing more to release more pollution and he will find a way to make money out of it too.

As for me, I will continue my research and development into pollution control and better energy use. I will better insulate my house to reduce my heating cost. I will walk more to use less gas since the price keeps getting higher.

Good luck to all humanity, we are still babies and still don't know how to think and live together until we stop being manipulated by some of those politicians.

It's important that international public awareness is created when it comes to the problems generated by carbon emissions, but as has been said before, I think this should be done by experts, not by an attention-seeking former politician whose monthly emissions are twice the size of the average family's yearly bill!

The sports mentality does not help. The "two sides" is not really two sides: it is more like 95% scientific community agreement and 5% scared ignorants with a loud microphone. Also, those who say they will listen only to the ones that are 100% right... well, what can you say to someone like that? What is their alternative? Not much really. Let them watch soaps.

While there is reasonably good evidence that global warming is happening, there is considerable doubt whether or not it is anthropogenic. See the blog "mtkass" "Global warming - anthropogenic or not" for a run down on some of the doubts.

On the Kilimanjaro issue, there is still debate on the cause or causes. It is clear from the latest research that it is not simply higher temps causing the reduction in the ice cap. It appears to be most likely a change in weather patterns around the summit. What caused the change? Many blame deforestation around the base of the mountain but some say it may be due to a regional climate change and global warming could have triggered it.

The judge is not a dork - in fact he is a very intelligent individual (I've met him and can say this on personal experience).

What has to be remembered is he can only work within the evidence presented to him. His assessment of the evidence he was shown shows a sharp and incisive mind and the decision he came to the most sensible in the circumstances.

Al Gore's problem is that some of the headlines in the film were incorrect or misleading which gave an opportunity for climate deniers. In that sense it was unhelpful.

The court case is in the context of the film being distributed to all secondary schools - a very unusual thing to do - and its right that it be accompanies by material that amplifies the areas which Gore got wrong. I can't see that is controversial.

Mr Justice Burton's decision makes it clear he thought very highly of the film and the majority of the science in it.

I would suggest anyone who wants to criticise the judge, read the judgment first.

One one hand when you have a scientific report about the amount of CFC's in the atmosphere, pollution in the oceans and marine life, and the effect of global warming - people yawn, getting used to it just like another news. On the other hand when Gore suggests the importance of immadiate change using less "scientific approach" to the public - yadda yadda this and that. Well, what does it take to see, then ?!?!?Who cares about the "unscientific" appoach issue with a subject like this ?!?! Are you people serious ? Any common sense left ?

Quote: "I think it is a very dangerous development that the scientific accuracy of the film is decided not by a scientific expert but by a judge. It is clear from the judge's comments that he is ignorant of the subtlety and complexity of the matter at hand."So it's much better to have a self-serving politician deciding this?

We must use less appears to be the message. The problem with Gore and other political leaders is they do not practice what they preach. The Nobel Committee could set an excellent president and award the prize by video link, cancel the lavish an environmentally unfriendly party. Al Gore and leading politicians could start flying economy,live in smaller house etc.these are the disproportionate users. Perhaps they are more important than the rest mankind?Until they lead from the front few will listen.

A poster above said "Real Scientists look at ALL the available data before suggesting any hypothesis and eventually, after testing and more data, it becomes a working theory."

In case it escaped your (and others) attention, the Nobel Peace Prize was jointly awarded to Al Gore and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The UN panel is made up of exactly the "real scientists" you mention - they draw on wide-ranging peer-reviewed scientific findings to come to their conclusions.

Can you name a report that debunks man-made climate change with a comparable in-depth analysis of peer-reviewed scientific findings?

It seems like you and many of the other posters here have made their minds up on this matter anyway.

At a time when Wales and the UK should be celebrating Sir Evans' amazing contribution they go and do this......Nobel Prize......for that muppet Gore? Are you joking?For what? Being famous and driving round in a big truck talking passionatley about an emotive subject from the safety of politcal retirement? Give me a break.

What has he acheived? What did he actually acheive? He made an 'ernest' film. You need an ex politician to tell you something before its important? He hardly has a lifetime dedicated to a better future, couple of years making a film, from which he has done very well thank you. He should give his prize back. Shame on the Nobel Prize committee. The actors are politicians and the politicians are actors and we lap it all up. So we get what we deserve. Go Al! Go Al! Go Al! Environmentalism is the new consumerism. Good jaaab guys! etc.

There is little doubt that Global Warming is as much as political movement as Science. Anyone who follows New Scientist and other magazines can recall the seemingly never ending stream of claims from Scientists (presumably seeking publicity, and possibly funding) that Global Warming is even worse than thought. Extra 1 degree rise in temperature by 2050 etc. If they were all correct, the oceans would already be boiling.

I consider I have one advantage on many readers. I am old. When I was at school we where taught as Scientific fact by well-meaning teachers that there was not enough food; millions would starve; the resulting mass movements of people would cause wars. We had our own version of “The Day After”: “Soylent Green”. Of course it was all nonsense. But it had terrible consequences, personal and otherwise. I remember a period of my life when I thought the end of world was nigh. It was not uncommon to hear people say “Who would bring children into such a world” - now I am old and my children are my greatest joy. I feel angry and sad for women in India who were forcibly sterilised, and for parents in China whose would-be second-born were forcibly aborted in the womb because of that nonsense.

I also remember reading about the Medieval warm period, and the Little Ice Age long before there very existence was questioned by the some because they are an inconvenient truth.

My fear is that the whole topic has become so political that it is no longer possible to tell fact from fiction. I hear some of the same claims I heard 45 years ago, and fear the same irrationality. Will those in the developing world find that their rise from poverty will be delayed or halted because someone somewhere decides that would not be sufficiently Green.

Al Gore has contributed in no small way to that irrationality. He muddied the waters by presenting extreme claims as fact. He is anti-Science. The judge was too easy on him.

Well done Al, I think even if IT isn't accurate it still raises a huge awareness to what is happening to our planet and it gives it in easy to understand format in small doses for that reason I think Al Gore has succeeded in his climate war even and well done!

Any search of historical events shows that Lake Chad has dried up and filled up many times over many millennia, Polar Bears are not suffering, they are thriving, as any local from the area will tell you. The classic ice-berg calving scenes at the start of any global warming clip are totally disingenuous, it's what glaciers do. Hurricane Katrina was Cat 3 at landfall, the disaster occurred because of inadequate defences for a sinking city that exists below sea level. A civil engineering report in 2003 uncannily predicted this disaster waiting to happen.

How debased New Scientist has become in its desire to promote global warming.

wow. so much gobbly-gook and hard-maulishness. bottom line is that the numbers ARE adding up...toxicity is on the rise and as a result our physical world is changing. forget about blame, details, money - what are we doing about it? besides sitting on our duffs blogging....................well, bye now - i'm going back to doing................

What a delight to read a NS blog, wonderful to get the cross-section of comments from the wise and the less wise. It is relatively obvious to most contributors here what the real story is: namely, just as Michael Moore got his movie celebrated at Cannes, so has Al got his efforts celebrated in Oslo. Only difference is the message on self-recrimination (for having elected such a president/for having elected such a energy-wasting lifestyle). Anyway, let's not shoot the messenger. Gore's efforts are because he truly believes "someone" should do something (just not him). Reading the as usual excellent analysis by NS of the science, all of us can see Gore overstated and overstepped on some points, and for those who have seen the film, we know his film is principally based on the relevant accepted research from the IPCC. Call it the "rush to publication" leading to "blurring of facts", still, I'm glad he got his celluloid out. I'm also glad a judge has quite accurately pointed out the film plays hard and fast with some facts: this is root and branch a part of the scientific method. I'm extremely pleased the IPCC is a named party in the Nobel. I'm even pleased the deniers are on this blog in full force. May they continue blogging away in their inaccurate best: makes it so much easier for those who deal in the way scientific facts evolve as research continues to remain motivated and on the alert to defend against their pseudo-science and hermetically sealed denial websites.

Whether or not you choose to believe that global warming is a problem, you will not find a scientist able to dispute 2 simple facts.

(i) The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is increasing dramatically, and more so each year.

(ii) CO2 and other similar molecules trap infra-red radiation, and warm up. As a result the atmophere is warming.

We can all watch a weather forcast and conclude immediately that science cannot tell us what the weather will do in future. I agree. However the above 2 facts must lead to one simple conclusion: The weather will change.Perhaps this will be for the better, perhaps this will be for the worse. What boggles me is how many people are willing to take the chance. Personally I would rather not roll the dice, but that is a decision society as a whole needs to take, those of us doing 'our bit' simply cannot do enough alone.

I would like to point 'Old Git' to genocides in Rwanda, and in the Sudan. The dystopian future you where promised is here. While there are quazi racial and political motives, the bottom line in both cases is a lack of resource for the people living there.I hope we nor our children ever have to fight in a resource war, and I will continue to do what I can do avoid that.

Meanwhile, those of you berating Al Gore for his scientific accuracy would do well to notice that he won the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Great to see such open and varied discussion in the blog. But can anyone explain to me why Gore was nominated for the Nobel "Peace" Prize. Was it for

"The prevention of massive potential armed conflict due to the competition between nations for the shortage of water and arable crop land that would probably result from the consequences of global warming if man is really found to be the root cause."

Without doing extensive research myself it seems that, with good reason, most Nobel prizes are awarded some (often many) years after they have had time to judge the real importance of the work done.

No matter what your assessment of his logic or motivations giving out a peace prize to Al Gore now is like giving out an Academy Award for the concept of a draft for a book. It could potentially be good and then made into a great movie one day, perhaps...

No arguments with Gore's assessment, even if it's not 100% right. However when it comes to solutions there are some critical ingredients that seem to be missing from the mix. See http://consumptiongrowth101.com/ConsumptionGrowth101.wmv

Can someone explain what I am seeing in the graphs at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ . My brother said that the lines are "going off the chart" and told me that it means the North Pole ice will disappear during a few years. Is this true?

One of the good thing on earth is that the truth willalways emerge eventually, and at least the UK HighCourt Judge Mr Justice Burton has started to object anumber of Al Gore’s allegation in: An InconvenientTruth, recently. IPCC’s reports should be scrutinizedin the same way. What ever the Nobel Prize may be goodfor, not the judiciary but we the people shouldrequire more and reasonable explanations concerningthe understanding of recent climate change events, forexample, why did the arctic warming happened in earlylast Century, that exceeded the pace of the currentwarming significantly.

Is ANYONE surprised that the uber-liberal Swedes would give the Nobel to their left-wing darling, Al Gore, hoping to resuscitate his political career in order to further their World Socialism interests?

What has actually been DONE, by Gore or anyone else, to stop man-made global warming (assuming it exists)? Virtually nothing. Kyoto is an unfunny joke. Few of the signers are going to meet their targets, those who will meet them have only managed it by transferring their eco-damage to third-world countries, and countries like China were never included. Carbon trading is primarily a scheme to make money for giant banking cartels, who are actively lobbying for trading and against simply taxing carbon. Economists are nearly unanimous that taxing makes more sense, if the true goal is reduction (as opposed to redistribution of wealth).

You can only carry the "correlation is not causation" arguement so far. If in 650,000 years CO2 always lags the temperature by an average of 800 years, it is hard to then say this time it is different. Earth's history shows that CO2 has been tens of times higher than now with no corresponding increase in temerature. In fact ice ages have happened with CO2 levels in the thousands versus in the hundreds of today. As to facts of CO2 lets not forget that CO2 is plant food. The more of it the more food we can get. CO2 is the least of the warming gases as water vapor and methane are much worse. CO2 concentration went up even as tempertuire from 1940 to 1975 went down. No this is not about CO2 causing anything it is about control of people just that and nothing more

interesting that people constantly call for only scientists to comment on Global warming and constantly doubt the evidence put forward....but rarely, if ever, do I hear the same burdens placed on those questioning global warming.

If we leave the debate up to only those qualified, then this argument was settled 20 years ago. Since then, it has been opportunists against scientists. With opportunists offering little to no evidence of their "doubts" beyond the gossamar justification of if it isn't 100% it isn't acceptable.

How our logic and ability to act has been usurped by absolutes I do not know, but I doubt anything will ever get done again if this is the test of assuredness.

I have to laugh at people who wish Gore hadn't said anything until he was absolutely sure he was right about everything. Without thinking hard I could cite about half a dozen "truisms" perpetuated by, if not current scientists, at least grade-school-level science textbooks, the media, and the government. Stuff like wolf packs having an "alpha" wolf in the wild (not true), or cholesterol causing heart disease (not true, it's a repair molecule), or ketones being dangerous (not true, they're a form of fuel), or the Agricultural Revolution being the best thing that ever happened to humanity (just ask paleopathologists and they'll show you an increase in chronic diseases and early mortality, shorter average height, more cultural violence). Don't get me started.

And it surely doesn't help that so many of us abrogate our collective responsibility to be scientifically literate ourselves, choosing to foist it off onto the "experts" instead, and then getting all outraged when someone like Gore comes along and carries on the fine old tradition of most scientific activity being engaged in by AMATEURS. Yes. You do not have to have an advanced degree to understand data or to use the scientific method, and the guys with degrees are just as likely to be biased or to present inaccurate information as any amateur. The only real difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional is paid, which alone should cast doubt on the professional's motives.

But I digress. Just seeing a commenter here announcing that Gore "made up a theory" and then "found facts to suit his theory" displays a breathtaking level of ignorance about how science works. The word is hypothesis. There is no such thing as "only" a theory, nor does one start out with a theory when one is seeking to prove or disprove a phenomenon. Theories have data to back them up. This doesn't mean scientists aren't human and don't sometimes rely on inaccurate or misinterpreted information, but people who can't even use scientific language correctly shouldn't be slamming others for "bad science."

As for the data itself I don't pretend to understand it all, but I did learn about the carbon cycle in school and I therefore don't understand why human causation of global warming is even up for debate. Hello? We're adding carbon into the carbon cycle beyond what already occurs through volcanic eruption, and have been doing so ever since we started burning coal. What did you think was going on? There is no Magic Carbon Pixie to clean it all up for us. As long as we dig up carbon deposits and use them for fuel we are going to be facing this problem. The individuals who discovered the uses of coal and oil as fuels should have been murdered and dumped into a bog. We'd all be better off now.

Dana, you of course correct. It would be better for all of us if we were still living in caves, blugeoning our food to death ( eating it raw of course no fires to allow CO2 out), only living to the ripe old age of 40, having friends/family being eaten by the non-alpha males in wolf packs, seeing most of our children die of unknown causes, never knowning other continents or oceans etc existed, etc. I loved the Flintstones.

You do not have to have an advanced degree to understand data or to use the scientific method, and the guys with degrees are just as likely to be biased or to present inaccurate information as any amateur. Dana

Hmm, and so in your opinion, we're supposed to believe the IPCC, a group of paid scientist. You discredit your own statements! A common manuever by someone who has a closed mind.

Read... read some more... then read yet more and don't be selective what you read. Read the other side of the story. Check out nrsp.com; junkscience.com; other websites. Read about the minimum level of CO2 necessary for plants to survive. Read about how the earth has actually been cooling off since 1998. How can you dismiss research from one group (who you don't agree with) and turn around and present as fact other research (that you do agree with)? Ever heard the expression "talking out of both sides of your mouth"?

Coal and oil were both put here for our use. I agree we need to conserve it all we can, but let's not do so at the expense of our economy. Those are our natural assets. NATURAL being the key word there. Gore made a fictional movie... it should have been called Al's Science Fiction movie.

You have to beleive science. Whether you decide, as you have, that you know more than some scientist because their research doesn't agree with your thoughts or let the experts debate the issue is totally up to you. Speaking for myself, I'm going to stick to what I've concluded from my own research, Gore lied to the public (again!) and climate change is a naturally occuring phenomenon. Help yourself to your own opinion but please, don't expect the rest of us to have the same one.. and respect our right to have our own, without some loudmouth ridiculing our intelligence.

btw: did folks notice who backed the court case? Big-money, flying-monkey, right-wing, anti-environmentalist kooks, that's who. As they used to say in the old american tv show 'gomer pyle': 'surprise, surprise.

Isn't it funny that when Channel Four broadcasts a documentary expressing scepticism about global warming, it gets trashed, but when Al Gore's film is shown to have errors, we get all sorts on intellectual (and not so intellectual) contortions to claim that it doesn't really matter?

As always, I am reminded of the way that "expert" opinion during the Cold War claimed that the USSR was solid, stable, and quietly supported by the mass of the people who lived in it, and the way that anyone who claimed otherwise was roundly abused. Right up until the Wall came down.

But "lucky" who did you expect to pay for the challenge, Greenpeace? The point of going to court is surely to get an open unbiased expert opinion. A much more Machiavellian approach would be to take it out of public debate and stage a propaganda campaign as everyone else seems to be doing, on both sides. Making it compulsory viewing without caveats is brain washing.

The film is alarmist rubbish and has no place in schools. If you step back in time far enough, the world is 'meant' to be a whole lot hotter than it is now. The 'natural' state of the earth is to have no polar ice at all. So if you want to help it get back to it's natural state, keep talking - your hot air is helping as much as anything else.

How depressing that so many people could see (or only hear about?) "An Inconvenient Truth" and conclude that the problem is the messenger and his "agenda" and not the message and its reality.

Folks, there is an oncoming freight train, and most of you are holding a tea party on the tracks.

Al Gore may have, as an old journalist, not a scientist, gotten a few points wrong here and there. Those errors should and will be corrected. When Al Gore releases version 2, entitled "An Increasingly Inconvenient Truth", the same folks will be back claiming that the 5 inevitable errors or debatable points in that film, invalidate the other 30 accurate statements, and "prove" that the basic thesis can't be right.

Fortunately science and people who interpret the natural world don't work according to procedures of biblical exegesis or "gotcha" politics. The facts will correct the text and the movie over time.

The only real fault with "An Inconvenient Truth" is its absolutely inadequate suggestions for what individuals and society need to do to avert the disaster.

I mean, "buy a fuel efficient car!"? Come on! If you think a hybrid electric vehicle, or more consumerism of any kind, is going to avert this oncoming freight train, you, along with Al Gore, are truly deluded.

Al Gore is a prophet, whose only error is to sugar coat the necessary responses to a gathering storm. Party on, people of Ninveh... you've had your warning. You mock the prophet because his grammar is not perfect, and miss the message entirely. We'll see how that works out for you and your children.

I recently saw a news article talking about how china is planning on quadrupling it's GDP by 2020. This is the biggest concern I think in terms of climate change.The climate change I am talking about it FACTS.FACT 1 - China = more and more humans taking up more room, using more fuel/energy (at the moment china uses 30% of the earths consumption of coal each year)FACT 2 - China = bigger factories, more polution!!!!FACT 3 - Scare tactics work only if it reaches the right targets. USA - good, they need a kick up the backside. Europe - same for them. China - prob don't care (as it shows with the GDP 'mission'FACT 4 - The earth will naturally rise in temp, BUT our 'climate' will suffer because of the over population, over pollution, overuse of fossil fuels etc

lets take this time to...A- get the SCIENCE clear in most people's eyesB- work together to get everyone on board to try and influence the nations like china which are getting way out of control.

I am not a scientist. I DO think that we need to base our actions in situations like this on what the scientific community represents as their consensus. This puts a huge burden of responsibility upon the scientific community. But we all have our responsibilities, and we all depend on others to do their jobs. The fact is that there is no sigificant amount of ink going to the story "IPCC in Disarray: No Consensus on Global Warming"...the opposite is true.

At this point most of the debate is back and forth by lay people over what they WANT to be true. The national scientific bodies of several advanced nations including the US and UK stand behind anthropogenic global warming theory at its current state of debate as reported by the IPCC. So the useful PUBLIC debate is over until the evidence or theoretical framework evolves in another direction.

Al Gore, in his slideshow as shown in the movie, intends to accomplish one thing: raise public awareness about what the scientific community is telling us so that we will ACT on that information. The slideshow and movie--produced by lay people; Gore included--are largely successful in that regard...(he said thankfully)

You can refer us to contrarian blogs until the cows come home but we are not going to stand down from campaigns for public action until the scientists individually, the national scientific acadamies that lend them credibility, and the IPCC which collates the data ALL change their minds on this. Not YOUR mind...THEIR minds.

One point that gets lost in all this is that if there were even only a 10% chance that global warming theory were correct, we'd still--given what's at risk--have to act.

Gore winning the nobel prize is a travesty. If he'd bothered to elaborate on the "complex relationship" between climate change and CO2 levels in the atmosphere, it would be shown that CO2 actually increases AFTER the increase in climate. The amount of CO2 we contribute in comparison to natural sources is a mere fraction of a percent, and the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is also a fraction of a percent.

The whole thing is an exuse to hike fuel prices and prevent the third world from ever having the right to have a proper industry. It should have just been called "a convient truth", seeing as he's screwing over the third world, costing us on fuel prices AND getting a nobel prize for it!

AP – Al Gore has for a long time been full of hot air. He has a vivid imagination about the world around him. His inherent mistrust of the seasons seems to stem from an episode of the Twilight Zone, in which the Earth gets too close to the Sun. Summers are hot & sticky, and Al is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures needed to create a more effective global deodorant.

If college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones, could save the City of Los Angeles from errant magma (Volcano), and the world entire from a giant cockroach (Men In Black), then certainly big Al Gore deserves a prize for his global initiative to combat global wetness. The same active ingredient and trusted formula that kept our leaders dry during the Cold War – now in unscented. As the planet heats up, you don’t have to! Clinton tested: guaranteed to leave no trace.

Now that Global Warming has been legitimized, a “private group” out of Monterey California of all places, wants to seed the North Atlantic with iron oxide particulate, to help plankton absorb more carbon dioxide (greenhouse gasses). Strategy: “cleanup the planet and make a buck on the side.” Another inconvenient truth; here’s how their misguided scam to pirate the “Peace Dividend” sparked the worst terrorist attacks on United States soil: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Anonymous on October 16, 2007 6:08 AM has some great points about the inadequacy of Gore's suggested response to GW (and I don't mean Bush). Anon's Ninevah reference is probably more perfect than he realizes. The prophet Jonah, who was sent by God to warn the Ninevites, simply told them that they were about to be destroyed. He WANTED them to die because they were the enemies of his people! But the Ninevites actually repented and CHANGED THEIR BEHAVIOR TOTALLY, thus staving off annihilation.

What concerns me about Gore is that, given his acceptance of global warming, he didn't have the guts to tell people the REAL inconvenient truth: their lifestyles must change DRASTICALLY in order to avert the prophesied disaster.

there's a line in a Pink floyd song about finishing the shift to beat up some Swedes. this confused me hugely when I was younger, why sing about making soup? Has I got older i realised some nations just really get in the neck! Give these guys a break, so they get confused with Norwegians, have strange rituals of whipping after heat and then freezing swims etc but just put this to one side and remember they gave us ABBA

The judge is obliged to adjudicate on evidence presented so if Mr Dimmock provided some interesting material or arguments, it is a fact of life that the judge would have had to take them into account. This does not make the individual elements presented by Mr Dimmock “more” right than the counter arguments embodied in Mr Gore’s film.

What is clear is that Mr Gore’s film is presenting a story to the public in a form that is easily assimilated, understood and then can be acted upon. One doesn’t believe politicians when they make broad brushed policy statements but that doesn’t alter the validity of the specific, detailed and extremely turgid statistics that underpin the policies. On this basis Mr Gore’s film is entirely unimpeachable and is in my view one of the most important things that has been done in the renewables/sustainability arena in recent years.

Conversely I believe that what Mr Dimmock has done is not simply a waste of effort and cost (except perhaps to the interest group of which he is a member) but a considerable disincentivisation device in a context where the environmentalists are working hard to build support behind what after all simply must be done. Is Mr Dimmock really suggesting that Climate Change isn’t happening? It does not particularly matter whether the effects of climate change represent two orders of magnitude of shift from a stable position or four orders of magnitude – who cares, when it is clear that whatever the quantum, “its happening”, happening badly and happening irrevocably?

As an atmospheric scientist working for the federal gov't (US), I'm used to my work and the work of my peers being used selectively to bolster political agendas of all flavors. The issue with having politicos do what Al Gore has done is it waters down the scientific process and provides a perpetual sore for detractors to pick at. People will always be able to claim (correctly) that Al cherry picked his data and offered what he had to to make his case, some of which was intentionally misleading. In scientific discourse, you don't want to be the one whose sources and motives are in question because you will quickly lose relevancy and people won't listen to you when you show up with the proverbial 'cure for cancer'. IMHO, Al Gore has taken a bold stance by tackling the issue as he has - but has also likely removed himself from all further serious scientific discussion.

What a waste of time reading all of this was. Just reading this comments page shows what a mess the whole issue of climate change is. For the the general public to really takes this seriously all the relevant scientists have to be in 100% agreement and they're not. I've been on hundreds of sites reading articles about climate change and very few agree with each other 100%, Al gores film is just another one of these articles but visual. It might have raised awareness which is great and right, but it also created a climate of fear as it WAS alarmist and opened the flood gates for films, documentaries and tv adverts to follow suit in showing visions of the apocolapyse.I would like to make my mind up on the subject and hear clear facts, but i can't until all the scientists put there childish attitudes and their bloody politics aside. Reading comment pages like this makes make sick when all i'm trying to find is a hint of truth.

Personally i think that although the movie does seem a bit propagandistic, it still does pose some very good questions about climate change, and although he did make a few mistakes, (i feel that is true), he could have presented the data and not given anyone any ammunition to criticize his movie then there wouldn't be a great resentment and distrust towards him and his production. However, i still think showing this film in state schools is a great idea, people like me need to see the effects, and there is no doubt (other than the bit about the sea levels) that these are clearly put forward in Al Gore's film.

Unfortunately, the science behind Al Gore and his group is terribly flawed, including the IPCC... most of the "consensus" scientist are not qualified to comment on climate, the data the ipcc has provided is based on ice core proxy and is inaccurate, CO2 is not harmful, there is not enough on the planet to cause the issues described, the planet will do whatever it will do and there is not a damn thing any of us can do about it... except pay with lost liberty and carbon offset taxes... all based upon one big lie. A grand scam AlGore

"Historically, global warming events at the end of ice ages have not been triggered by rises in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. However, as explained in Climate myths: Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming, this does not disprove that CO2 warms the atmosphere and that rising CO2 emissions have cause warming since the 20th century."

That's not the point. The correlation between CO2 and temperature from the ice core data was portrayed in the movie as the "King Hit", the "undeniable" proof that CO2 drives global temperature both historically and presently. That CO2 has been shown to lag behind temperature by about 800 years, removes the prime piece of evidence from the case that man-made CO2 emmissions are responsible for global warming. The rest of the film mainly comprised of circumstancial evidence that the earth has warmed during the last century, hardly surprising when you consider that global temperature has always gone in cycles. But any reputable scientist will agree that correlation, no matter how compelling does not prove causation. I challenge any scientist to dispute any of my claims.

You are missing the point John Mashey. The ice core data has proven that CO2 lags behind temperature by approximately 800 years. We can draw two different hypothesis from this.

The first hypothesis is that temperature has been the cause of the temperature change all along. Ie, CO2 has had little influence on temperature and the temperature/solubility relationship of CO2 in sea water is the dominant mechanism for the CO2/temperature correlation.

The second hypothesis as you mentioned is that although temperature was the cause and CO2 the effect initially, the CO2 then acted as an amplifier for temperature increase.

The ice core CO2/temperature graph presented in the movie showed a convincing correlation between CO2 and temperature and this was consequently portrayed as the knock out blow for the global warming theory and the final nail in the coffin for the “deniers”. The film takes full advantage in the ignorance of the general public (and sadly some scientists also) but those that know better realise that correlation does not prove causation, no matter how compelling the correlation may be.

If I were to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that the 2nd hypothesis is correct (unlikely), there is still no conclusive evidence that this is so and the CO2/temperature correlation presented in the movie in no way proves the second hypothesis correct and the first hypothesis incorrect. If the second hypothesis is indeed correct as you say, more evidence is needed.

The very fact that CO2 has been shown to lag behind temperature has in effect invalidated the entire film and the case for man made global warming in one swoop. For the warmists, at best I would say the debate between the warmist and deniers is wide open. At worst, the deniers are in a stronger position.

I cited two URLs, one with a short explanation by the UK Met's Chief Scientist, and a longer one with references to recent peer-reviewed articles. The basic feedback mechanism was described in 1990 by Lorius, et al in Nature [a credible publication], and there is a URL in the first reference I gave.

The CO2/temperature feedback might have been a hypothesis in 1990, but over the 1990s, multiple lines of evidence have supported it, and it's been a rock-solid theory for years, with the main arguments about refining detailed mechanisms and bounding uncertainties.

The basic Greenhouse Effect of CO2 (and CH4), and the decreased solubility of CO2 in warmer water *demand* this amplification effect.

The issue is that in most of the ice-core records show the amplification-lag cycle, where the GHG is *necessary* to account for the magnitude and steepness of the temperature rise, and the lag only ocvers the early 15-20% of the total rise period:

- higher temperature -> more GHG- more GHG -> higher temperature

Right now, the natural Milankovitch cycle should be putting us in a very long, slow temperature decline (with jiggles and flat spots), but instead:

ORc) know with absolute certainty that if Al Gore says it, it can't be true?

[Physics is neither liberal nor conservative, although certain people wish to make it seem that way. Scientists don't.

George H. W. Bush didn't think so in 1989.

The recent politicization of science is a very bad effect, and I'm sorry to say much of it came from the US.]

======People who actually *want* to understand the science [which is *not* everyone], should read the real science, if they can.

Next best is to listen to and ask questions of real climate scientists in person.

Where are you located?

If you're in the UK, there are real scientists not too far away from most of the population,. Many universities put on talks open to the public. I've heard some good talks by people I could recommend, some of whom are in departments that offer outreach speakers. Maybe you're part of some local organization that could request a talk.

Given the more spread-out nature of the US, it's a little harder, although many universities do climate science research and have public seminars.

Of course, it's easier in some places than others. I live near Stanford University, and top climate scientists & Nobel Physics winners are handy, and talk to local town meetings, not just on campus.

You did site two URL references. These references may be supportive of a particular hypothesis but there is still no proof that this hypothesis is correct over the alternative hypothesis that temperature is the cause and CO2 concentration the effect throughout the whole cycle.

By proof I am referring to experimental or observation evidence. The field of climate science is unfortunate in that it is one of the few sciences where it is impossible to carry out experiments. The only way to prove beyond doubt whether CO2 has an amplifying effect on temperature would be to instantaneously release a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere while keeping all other climate forcings constant and to see what happens. This is impossible for obvious reasons. Without this it’s impossible to validate any model or theory and it is also impossible to distinguish between man-made and natural causes for the small increase in temperature (less than 1 degree celcius) that has occurred over the last century. Any literature without this validation should be treated with a pinch of salt regardless of whether or not it is from a peer reviewed source. This is particularly relevant for something as complicated as the climate where there must be thousands of variables to contend with. The fact that such literature is able to get passed the peer reviewed process and published in respectable journals is a matter of concern in itself. If it were an engineering journal (being an engineer myself) I can guarantee you that wouldn’t. I guess you could argue that we shouldn’t blame the scientists for trying but the problem is when too much confidence is being placed on the result to the effect where it is driving global policy.

Quote:

“Right now, the natural Milankovitch cycle should be putting us in a very long, slow temperature decline (with jiggles and flat spots), but instead:”

It is true that we are due to decline into another ice age in the “near future”. But it must be remembered that “near future” in ice age terms is anything less than 1000-2000 years, in human terms this is a very long time. No respectable scientist could predict an ice age (or lack of) from a warming trend that has lasted only a century with various periods of warming and cooling within that century.

ORc) know with absolute certainty that if Al Gore says it, it can't be true?”

As I’ve already mentioned, the peer review process means little (if anything) if the theories or claims cannot be substantiated by experimental evidence, which is impossible in climate science. This is fundamental and no amount of qualifications or reputation can make up for this.

Most of my information is either my own opinion as an engineer or it has come from the internet or media (eg, Al Gores film).

You do have strong opinions, but why aren't you willing to cite where they come from? Many engineers do *not* form strong opinions out of thin air.

If you are in the UK, you have excellent resources for actually obtaining scientific information.

The Royal Society's webpage is a reasonable start:http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278and I already pointed to the UK Met.

The whole IPCC report is online:http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.htmlThe SPM overview is really not that long.

Here's a short course done by Imperial College recently:http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/cpd/courses/subject/environmental/climate/presenters/The March 26 day would be a terrific 1-day course on climate science, from top scientist. I've heard Jo Haigh speak. She's very knowledgable, and answers questions well for an audience that is not experts. I don't know how often they do these, but Jo's department solicits giving public talks in London and elsewhere in the UK:

http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/pus.html

Professor Sir Peter Knight of IC is also an excellent speaker on this topic.

An excellent history of the development of climate science is Spencer Weart's:http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

That would help you understand the experiments that have been done, why climate scientists know what they know, and how they came to know it.

I do have my own opinions however most of what I have mentioned on this blog are not just my opinion but scientific fundementals. The fact that a correlation does not prove causation is a scientific fundemental, a fact that was rather naively ignored in Gore's film when he showed us the ice core data. Even more of concern is the fact that many warmist scientist have described the film as scientifically accurate and up to date. Even if the warmists are right about CO2 and global warming(I'm not saying they are), the least they could do is admit that the Gore film showed very significant scientific innaccuracies. Wikipedia has a good article that explains this well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The other issue I have mentioned, the need for rock hard experimental evidence to proove any model or theory, is not merely my opinion but is a scientific fundemental. There are only two ways to validate a model. One is by experimentation in the laboratory which cannot be done with climate models. The reason for this is the need for a "control". Ideally this would mean two identical earths under identical conditions. CO2 would be released into the atmosphere of one of these earths and the other would be left unchanged. Under these conditions it would be possible to isolate the effect of CO2 from the thousands of other variables that effect climate. Remember we are only looking at small temperature changes over the last century (less than 1 degree), this could easily be explained by natural cycles. The other way to validate a climate model (and this is the realistically possible way) is to wait and see if it can accurately predict the temperature well into the future. As far as I'm aware no climate model has yet succeeded at doing this.

To summarise, the fact that correlation does not proove causation and that a model has to be properly validated are not just the opinion of an engineer. These are scientific fundementals that any good scientist or engineer should know.

Al *knows* what he knows about climate science without citing the scientific literature or accessible experts, whose opinions must be irrelevant since they are "warmists", a category that strangely includes almost all real climate scientists and relevant scientific organizations:http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

Now, just because all these folks think so doesn't make it right, i.e., this is not an argument to authority, merely the observation that all these people must be wrong.

======But, for anyone else who still following this:

1) Any scientifically-literate person knows correlation is not causation. However, the Lorius paper, in 1990, laid out the physics of the positive-feedback cycle that causes there to be such a good correlation. I've already described that, and pointed at articles of varying levels of depth.

2) Some people want to to believe that anything not demonstrable in the equivalent of a high-school chemistry lab can't be real.

- It's not easy to demonstrate evolution in a lab. Nevertheless, it's the foundation for modern bioscience.

- No one has ever done a lab experiment that proves smoking tobacco increases the risk cancer or heart disease in humans, and even if they could, it would be rather unethical. Of the 4000 compounds in cigarette smoke, many are known to be carcinogens, but not necessarily why, i.e., they don't necessarily know the exact biochemistry, and they cannot pick a person and say: "If you smoke X cigarettes/day, you will shorten your life by N years." But they can certainly make very good statistical predictions.

- The evidence for AGW is every bit as strong as those two, and along with many other areas of science, the evidence doesn't come from simple lab experiments. I've already URLs for people who actually care about learning the science.

For those of you in the UK: you're better off on AGW-mitigation issues than the US as a whole, and you don't have the Sea-Level Rise issues like the Dutch. Scotland is undergoing Post Glacial Rebound (PGR), and warmer temperatures will likely allow fine wineries on the North Shore of Loch Ness sometime after 2100. http://www.winelandsofbritain.co.uk/

On the other hand, PGR also means the South is sinking. London has a river through it, and already needed tidal surge barriers, and PGR-down + Sea-level-rise is a bad combination for the South:www.ukcip.org.uk/resources/publications/documents/124.pdfBOTTOM LINE: Scotland and Yorkshire Dales are fine.

Try:http://flood.firetree.net/to see, noting of course that just because some is below sea-level doesn't mean it's actually underwater. You can make your own guesses about Sea-Level Rise, but given the recent accelerations, +1m ~2100 is not a bad guess. Although nobody really knows, it's worth checking out +6m (2200? 2300?), and looking at +14m [although if we get that far, we're probably committed to +20m, but that's not on this website.]

I am a simple person, and forgive me for simplifying what appears to be a very complicated argument. But I would like to bring to your attention a subject which sticks in my mind of being told at my time in school, called the carbon cycle. Remember this? where the green plants of the world live off our waste (Carbon Di-Oxide), and we live off theirs (Oxygen)?

Every time I read a debate on global warming, I am shocked that nobody seems to notice that we are removing the natural answer to reducing CO2 levels. Trees!

How many trees have been cut down in the UK alone to be replaced by first of all fields for farming, and in this period housing. Take a look at old satellite photos of england where the sprawling forests covered our rolling hills.

I am 28, and this may be a part of my romantic remembrance of my childhood, but many of the gardens I played in as a child had a tree or more to use as goalposts, or just climb on to scare the hell out of the parent/s watching over me at given time.

Now I see gardens getting rid of those trees because they are in the way. We have lost touch with reality that we are supported by our environment.

Simple maths, tell us that we must be adding to CO2. Removing of trees ( I mention trees as with crops, the land must be left fallow for a period of time for the land to recover, trees obviously are there for long periods of time and are constantly converting CO2), coupled with burning of fossil fuels must be ADDING to the CO2 amounts in the atmosphere.

If we were to live in a perfect world where truths were always told I am sure a film like this would never be made. Truth is propaganda works, normally for personal gain, but when it is used for public gain, is it so bad? I think if this film has inspired people to check out the facts on global warming then it has done a wonderful thing, and hope you all continue to look, LISTEN, and discuss your findings.

There are plenty of qualified climate scientist who are climate change skeptics. As usual, the warmists response to skeptics is to dismiss them as climate scientists since they are "deniers". Either that or they are being "paid by Exxonmobil" (a pointless claim as discussed below) of which I doubt there is any proof, even if they are being paid by Oil companies, this does not make it wrong.

A stronger argument could be made the other way. Warmists definitely have a financial interest in their being man-made global warming. If it were proved wrong there would be thousands of people out of work. Many of these people would find their reputation in tatters and in many cases out of work completely as nobody would want to be associated with them (in the academic world) and they are probably unemployable outside academia. Not to mention the embarrassment, a lot of people are going to have egg on their faces if this "global warming" is prooved wrong. These incentives for the warmists far outweigh a mere $10,000 reward from Exxonmobil.

The following site has some thought provoking articles.

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

May I suggest that you avoid the normal tactic used by warmists of discrediting the people or the organisation. Attack the idea, not the people.

Most all of the "evidence" points to the globe either being in an Ice Age or about to go into one...

I am a architect and I try to design appropriately for the life cycle of my projects... so far this has worked out great.

I certainly support saving energy and using all resources in a wise manner.

I do not now nor will ever support lying or using scare tactics... when I discovered the "global warming" group had resorted to deception, lies and scare tactics... and I personally have studied hundreds of papers on all sides and political persuasions of the issue... the "evidence" does not support Mr. Gore, the IPCC nor, Mr. Hansen, nor the 60 Doctorates on the IPCC.

There are over 19,000 scientists who find GW to be a fraud... and many of the scientists are past the days of depending on research grants with pre-conceived conclusions (bribes)fortheir livlihood... these scientists come from all over the globe, capitalist and communist... rich and poor... left and right... but they all still think critically... GW is not a religious experience for them.

We would drastically cut down CO2 emissions if we stopped breeding billions of animals for slaughter. Mr. Gore does not discuss this obvious solution, why? Perhaps he likes too much his steak, just like he likes his house lit up like a Xmas tree? The man is a clown and a hypocrite to boot.

There is no point in this movie. The lies that are mentioned are countless. Yet teachers have still played this movie in their classrooms because they think thatto much carbon dioxide is ruining the world. That was what people thought long ago and with new studies we find that untrue. But they haven't taken the time to read all of the facts. They are to stuban to change their minds about global warming. However the topic makes for great debates when the subject comes up.

Hey Al (the poster, not Gore), since you know so much about scientific fundamentals, have you ever heard of replication in scientific experiments? Your ground-breaking 2 earth design is not scientifically valid.

I believe I am a Democrat in the vein of great Democrats like John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan; Having studied this issue from most perspectives, I have found that "global warming" is not global at all but cyclic. In 2007, the ice of Antarctica (south pole) grew thicker by many yards because of the cold cycle in the south while the ice in the north warmed and melted. Hundreds of years ago the majority of the people of the world believed that the world was flat and any who disagreed with this mistaken belief were quite often penalized severely for unbelief. Today a similar event occurs called global warming which is neither global nor dangerous.The slow melting of the ice in the north is the earth moving water around to distribute it evenly in order to keep the central balance of the its spin and gravitational pull equal. Moreover, because the earth is alive in an inexplicable way and connected with this solar system and with the universe as a whole, there is invisible activity, which acts to keep the balance of the earth equal in relation to everything else. Water IS a great stabilizer. Have a wheel out of balance on your car? Put some water or antifreeze, if it is cold, in your tire. As you drive the fluid will fill the "low" spot in your tire and will balance your tire. (Silica sand works better.) The point here is that because of climatic changes, [changes such as the ice age,] the earth acts to protect itself through internal self-balancers. It is not alive in the manner that we understand life to be but through some medium we may never understand, the earth protects itself by such things as a regional warming to allow the water to move around the globe in order to act as a self-balancer.This does not mean that we should throw conservation to the wind. I am a conservative before I am a Democrat and conservation of the earth IS a GOD REQUIRED effort on our part. Being “green” cab be a good thing but like all things excessive, too much is just as harmful as not enough. The earth acts in a balance with nature and the universe providing just enough to allow life to prosper. This is demonstrative to and for us. By acting in a self-regulatory balance we can have all we want, within reason and keep it clean for the next generation.Thank you for hearing my small view of the issue.Cecil L Russell (D) for President

What really scare me about the movie:2 glasses of water1 has ice floating1 has ice stack above the glassHe goes on saying:"when the ice underneath the water melts, the level of water REMAINS THE SAME, you have to worry about the ice above the waterline which increases the level of water"

Well, it is a rudimentary knowledge that water expands when it freezes, therefore, the volume occupied by the ice underneath the waterline, would DECREASE in volume when it melts.It's hard to give credibility to all the 'scientific data' shown in the movie when one is manipulating such a basic truth of science.

what do i care if human life is extinguished due to their own avarice. beit twenty-five fifty or a hundred years, let these wretched rats drown we deserve nothing less. what we should be worrying about is massive solar flares or cosmic bombardment, but there is not much we can do about that. i care not for the enviroment, nor for the mangy miscreants our collective society has spawned. i will not be around to enjoy 2100 or 2050 so i do not care what these so called humans do with their waste. thanks alot folk i do welcome angry rhetoric

I see a lot of "so what" if the movie wasn't accurate, it got people talking. If we are to base our behaviour on the movies assertions, it damn well better be accurate. CO2 levels rising = temp. rising, but that is in a vacuum. It is not the case in the real world, temps go up and then CO2 goes up. Earth has warmed more than current levels in the past, but yet has cooled before humans were here. The fact that the planet has not continued to heat into a sauna is indicative that there are mechanisms [perhaps CO2 traps moisture and increases cloud cover = reflecting sunlight =lowering temps]that keep a balance. The inconvenient truth is that all these "green" regulations/protocals won't have any effect on temps even if they are followed [even 'greenies' agree it is true], but they will lead to massive tax increases in the process. So if more taxes/regulations don't have any effect, why are they being pushed? Phillips/GE are going to make a lot more $ on CF light bulbs than standard ones, perhaps that's why big business is going green? If evil business is the problem and only concerned with $, why are there so many that are now pushing green ideas? Big business is about making $, so they will use the green movement when it is helpful to their bottom line. The light bulbs contain mercury and cost 4 -5 times what a normal bulb does, but makes GE/Phillips more profit. So for the sake of the planet the US government is forcing us to put mercury in our homes and then into a landfill in 2012?? Your liberty and freedom are being eroded by environmentalism. Let the free market decide. Al Gore has set himself up to make huge $ if carbon credit mandates are passed. He may be concerned about the environment, but that doesn't stop him from 'polluting' it with his private jet trips and mansions. He will not debate the issue with scientists who say it is nonsense...why?? Environtmentalism is amazing in that the means to the end is the same end game as extremem liberalism...more government, less freedom, more taxes. How much $ and liberty will the green movement cost us and yet do nothing to effect temperature? Keep the government out of my wallet and life as much as possible please.

Welcome to our game world, my friend asks me to buy some flyff penya . I do not know how to use the flyff money ; my friend tells me how to use. I will thank for my friends bringing me in this world. I am not regret to buy flyff gold . We all love game, if you want to play it, please buy flyff penya and join us. Please do not hesitate to have cheap penya . It is funny.